Author Archives: Dale

About Dale

Journalist in the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery

Roundup: A committee nobody will love

Posted on by

So, the government has put the notice on the Order Paper about forming their electoral reform committee, and there will be howls of outrage from all corners as this is going to please precisely nobody. Well, except maybe Liberals who will be controlling this process. In short, Maryam Monsef’s principles for democratic reform have been distilled to five points from eight, and the committee will be constituted of twelve MPs – six Liberals, three Conservatives, one New Democrat, one Bloc and Elizabeth May, but the Bloc MP and May won’t have voting rights in keeping with established practice. The committee will invite all MPs to hold town halls in their ridings and submit a written report back to the committee by October 1st, and the committee’s final report is to be delivered by December 1st. Of course, the NDP are going toe be livid because Liberals continue to make up a majority on the committee (which is legitimate given that they have the most seats) and that it doesn’t follow Nathan Cullen’s “proportional” idea – which, let’s be clear, was all about gaming the committee to advance his own proportional representation agenda. May is going to be upset because she’d not getting a vote, and she too is going to be railing that it won’t allow her to advance her own PR agenda. The Conservatives are going to be upset because the possibility of a referendum is not in this proposal, and they see that as their way of holding onto the status quo (which they feel favours their own chances). And I’m going to add my own particular objections that, as I’ve written previously, there are some serious problems with those principles that Monsef has laid out. We’ll see how this exercise goes, and I have a sneaking suspicion that these town halls may start to become sideshows as groups like Fair Vote Canada start trying to Astroturf them in trying to get PR advanced as the model to go forward (and given how PR advocates tend to operate, the insults and nastiness are going to start flying pretty quickly). There is also the (not unjustified) suspicion that the fix is already in, that the Liberals have their preferred model (likely ranked ballots) and that this is all a big production number to make it look like they’ve consulted Canadians, and that may very well be the case. Suffice to say, I suspect the next few months are going to be one giant headache, especially for those of us who are cognisant of the civic literacy issues at play.

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/730215513821982721

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/730216383448031233

https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/730216678756339712

Continue reading →

Senate QP: About that bridge toll…

Posted on by

Time once again for another episode of Ministerial Senate Question Period, with special guest star Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi. Sohi took his place next to Senator Harder, and things got underway with relatively poor attendance, somewhat unusually, but many senators were at the legal and constitutional affairs committee for the pre-study of the assisted dying legislation. Senator Carignan led off, talking about a major infrastructure project in Montreal, and whether Sohi had met with the provincial minister and if they planned to participate. Sohi first thanked the Senate for the special opportunity to be there, and then launched into a discussion about the meetings he was having around the project and how important it was to engage with pension funds like the causes de depot as this project was.

Continue reading →

QP: Nobody believes that invitation 

Posted on by

A lovely Tuesday afternoon in Ottawa, and most of the leaders were present today, though not Rona Ambrose, who is still in Alberta, on the ground with the Fort McMurray Fire victims. Andrew Scheer led off, reading from a script on his mini-lectern, first calling for praise for the firefighters in that region, and then demanded pipelines be built to “cushion the blow” of the fire. Justin Trudeau first congratulated the firefighters on the ground, and said they would help with the rebuilding. Scheer demanded that the government not allow “special interests” block any pipelines. Trudeau hit back by pointing out that the Conservative approach failed to get pipelines to tidewater. Scheer brought up the Washington trip and how the in-laws were present by not the Natural Resources minister. Trudeau reminded him that those guests were personal invites by Obama. Scheer insisted that nobody believed that was the case, and demanded Trudeau just tell them that he added those names to the list. Trudeau told him that Obama insisted they be invited on top of the official delegation. Scheer hammered away, insisted that the Natural Resources Minister still should have been there. Trudeau repeated again that the Conservatives didn’t understand how that bilateral relationship actually works. Thomas Mulcair led for the NDP, and he wondered who the government was trying to protect in the KPMG tax evasion scandal. Trudeau reminded him of their investments into CRA, and noted that it was a Liberal who raised the issue in committee to begin an investigation. Mulcair read some shell companies listed in the Panama Papers, and pointed out that the parliamentary secretary to the minister of heritage worked for one of them. Trudeau reiterated that they were committed to combatting tax evasion, regardless of Mulcair’s smears. Mulcair moved onto the PBO report on the loss of small business tax cuts, and Trudeau praised the Canada Child Benefit as a measure that helps the economy as a whole. Mulcair then demanded that the assisted dying bill be referred to the Supreme Court, but Trudeau demurred.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Gratuitously rejecting amendments

Posted on by

It sounds like deliberations in the Commons justice committee are going about as well as expected, as they reject dozens of amendments related to the medical assistance in dying bill. It should be noted that they’re rejecting amendments from all sides – both the Conservative ones aimed at introducing further restrictions (which should probably just invoke the Notwithstanding Clause along with them because of how they further impede the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Carter), and those NDP, Bloc and Green amendments that would make the legislation more permissive, and it sounds like only a couple of minor amendments have been accepted – one Liberal, one Conservative, both fairly technical. All of this is making be believe that we may be headed for a showdown with the Senate, as it sounds increasingly like they are unhappy with the current state of the bill and have grave concerns that it doesn’t meet the constitutional tests laid out in the Carter decision. This could make for a very interesting few weeks ahead if senators decide to dig in their heels – particularly Senate Liberals, who are likely to very clearly demonstrate their independence from the Liberals in the Commons as they take opposition positions on this government bill. We’ll see how far they’re willing to push it, whether they will amend the bill and send it back to the Commons, and if the government decides to push back or not, or accept the judgment of the Senate in its more independent state (as Trudeau has insisted he’s looking to make a reality). More likely, we’ll be subjected to weeks of pundits baying at the moon because how dare the unelected Senate dare to challenge elected MPs even though that’s the whole point of the institution in our constitution. I can hardly wait for that fun to start. Meanwhile, Aaron Wherry looks at how MPs are dealing with this issue in terms of consulting with their constituents for the upcoming free vote, and how their own religious convictions play into it. Of course, MPs always like to say all manner of things about what their constituents say and believe (and it almost always just happens to line up exactly with their party’s talking points, as if by magic), and given how completely spineless most MPs tend to be on tough issues like this, we’ll see how they wind up deciding when the final vote comes down.

Continue reading →

QP: Endlessly repeating the same question

Posted on by

While it was Monday, the no major leaders in the Commons — Justin Trudeau was several blocks away talking about Canada increasing its contributions to the a Global Fund to fight HIV and TB, while Rona Ambrose was in Alberta, and Thomas Mulcair was, well, elsewhere. Andrew Scheer led off, mini-lectern on desk, asking if the government would match donations to other charities than just the Red Cross in the Fort McMurray wildfires. Ralph Goodale praised the capacity of the Red Cross, and said they would look at other compensation going forward. Scheer then asked why the PM’s in-laws went to Washington and not the Natural Resources Minister. Dominic LeBlanc reminded him that the president himself invited the PM’s mother and in-laws. Scheer lamented that party “bagmen” also squeezed out ministers, and LeBlanc reminded him that the two in question were invited by the White House, and the taxpayers paid no part of their trip. Gérard Deltell then took over in French, asking the same question again twice, and LeBlanc repeated the response in the other official language. Dion responded on the second time, and he praised the work of the Natural Resources minister in getting an agreement with the Americans. Peter Julian led off for the NDP, howling about KPMG’s involvement. Diane Lebouthillier decried those wealthy individuals who haven’t paid their fair share, and that there were criminal investigations underway, contrary to his assertion. Julian asked again in English, Lebouthillier repeated her answer, adding that she isn’t sure why he can’t understand it. Niki Ashton hectored about the size of the budget implementation bill, for which Bill Morneau disputed that it was an omnibus bill. Ashton then demanded immediate decriminalisation of simple possession of marijuana, and Bill Blair quoted Mulcair in saying certain decriminalisation would be a mistake.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Who to blame for short timelines

Posted on by

Our friend Kady O’Malley penned a column over the weekend about how anyone upset about the tight timeline of the assisted dying legislation should be upset at the fixed election date instead of the Supreme Court for imposing the deadline. And she’s right, but I’m not particularly enthused about her suggestion that the election date be moved to earlier in the year instead of October, as that date pretty much wipes out the fall sitting of Parliament. I mean, that is a valid point, but if you were to ask me, the real suggestion would be to simply eliminate the fixed election date as we already have a constitutional requirement that elections be held every five years, whereas the fixed date is a particular bit of Americanisation that is supposed to provide stability but just winds up making the whole system worse off, from turning Question Period into an unrelenting series of election ads, to simply changing the government’s calculations on policy to suit that date rather than supposedly helping the opposition by giving them more predictability when it comes to election timing. It didn’t, incidentally, stop the speculation of early election calls since pretty much every media outlet continued to ask whether there would be an early call (as is permissible, since the legislation can’t actually bind the powers of the Governor General), so it’s not like it changed that conversation any. That all being said, I would like to note that while many people quite rightly point out that there was no obligation on the Supreme Court to give the government that year (plus the extra four months) to come up with a bill, but could rather have struck down that prohibition immediately and we would have had few ill-effects, I will point out that without a deadline, MPs would simply keep putting off the legislation under the constant plaintive wails that it’s “deeply personal” and “a difficult subject.” Our MPs, in the event you haven’t noticed, are a lot that really are pretty lacking when it comes to moral courage to deal with difficult things. Instead, they wait for people to bring it to the courts in order to be “forced” to deal with it, and if you look at the pattern from the last decade or so, their response is to half-ass some rushed legislation in response, decry the courts for forcing them into such a compromise position, and leave it for it all to be challenged in court once again. That we have a new government doesn’t seem to have changed the pattern too much, with overly cautious legislation that doesn’t appear to meet the test laid out by the Supreme Court in the Carter decision, while MPs fall all over themselves to declare that it’s a “deeply personal” issue while wailing plaintively that there are no provisions for more palliative care in a bill that is about changing Criminal Code prohibitions. So rather than blaming the fixed election date (which is a valid position), I choose instead to blame our rather spineless crop of MPs, who have mostly chosen to complain about the lot they’ve been given rather than rise to the occasion.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Talking out the clock needlessly

Posted on by

As you may have heard, Conservative MPs refused to let debate collapse on Mauril Bélanger’s national anthem bill yesterday, not allowing it to come up for a vote as had been hoped in order to fast-track the bill through the process owing to Bélanger’s condition. While this has been described as a “filibuster,” it’s not quite, but it was dickish behaviour, make no mistake – particularly the fact that all of the Conservative MPs were making the same points over and over again rather than offering any new criticism of the bill (with such novel excuses that it would be a slippery slope – references to God would be next in line, and woe be the age of political correctness, and so on). As a quick explanation, private members’ business cannot be filibustered because it is all automatically time allocated. Under the standing orders, each private members’ bill or motion gets two hours of debate – each hour separated by the precedence list of 30 items, meaning about six sitting weeks – before it goes to a vote. If bills pass the second reading vote, they go to committee for a couple of hours of study before they get another two hours of debate at report stage and third reading (again, separated by the precedence list of 30 items), and then they head to the Senate, where there is no time allocation and they will often get more scrutiny – particularly at committee – but government business taking priority means that they can sometimes languish there for months. In this particular case, there was a hope that debate could collapse and there would be no need for a second hour of debate, but they also requested that they could go straight into the second hour, but the Conservatives denied consent to do so. After all, they had planes to catch back to their ridings. If Bélanger’s health deteriorates further and he is forced to resign his seat – and he did come to the debate directly from the hospital – then it would be possible for another MP to take on the bill in his stead, but that tends to require unanimous consent, and if the Conservatives continue to want to be dickish about this, then they can deny it and the bill will die without its sponsor present. And because this is a private members’ bill, no other MP can launch a similar bill in this parliament, since there are rules around debating the same bill twice. The danger for those Conservatives, however, is that the Liberals can turn around and put it into a government bill and put it through the process that way, which gives them all manner of other tools to use to push it through – particularly on the Senate side. And while nobody is arguing that the bill should pass just because of Bélanger’s health, the argument is that it should have come to a vote so that it could pass or fail at second reading. While Conservatives argue that they have a right to talk out the clock, the fact that they kept repeating themselves is a sign that this was a dilatory tactic and designed to be dickish, which is what has enraged a number of Bélanger’s supporters. And really, it’s unnecessary because it looks like they’re bullying a dying man, and no good can come of it. We’ll see if anyone is willing to trade their upcoming slot in the Order of Precedence to move Bélanger’s second hour of debate up so the vote can be accelerated, but it shouldn’t have been necessary.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A rare apology

Posted on by

A trio of Justin Trudeau-related items in the news today, which makes me want to look at them together. The first incident of note was actually last in chronological order, but to me it seemed most significant, which is the fact that during Question Period yesterday, Trudeau stood up and apologised for having told reporters on Wednesday that opposition party obstruction was to blame for why a committee on electoral reform was not yet up and running, and pledged that he was still serious about the topic. I’m not sure that we ever saw Stephen Harper apologise, nor would we ever see it because that was a man who was not only determined to always be seen to be right, but he also had a particularly obstinate streak that made him dig his heels in rather than be proven to be wrong. Most often this was around the inappropriate behaviours of cabinet ministers, and rather than have them step down over wrongdoing, Harper would keep them in position well past the time that the heat was on them, and only shuffle them once the attention was elsewhere so it didn’t look like he was capitulating to demands of the reporters. Trudeau on the other hand owned up to what he had said, apologised, promised to do better, and even applauded when the MP who called him out made a slightly clever dig about it in his follow-up question. It was a show of humility and accountability that we are unused to seeing here. The second incident of note was after his speech on Fort McMurray at the start of the day, during Statements by Ministers (a practice in Routine Proceedings that the Conservatives had virtually allowed to fall into complete disuse). Rona Ambrose rose to give remarks in reply, and got emotional during it, and once she finished speaking, Trudeau was quick to cross the aisle to give her a quick hug – again, something that cold fish Harper was loathe to do, and only once gave awkward hugs around speeches related to either an MP’s passing or the attack on Parliament Hill (I forget which and tried to find a reference but couldn’t – forgive me). Trudeau remains a master of the humanizing gesture that helps to civilise politics in a way that we have become unused to after a decade of angry sound and fury. The third item of note had to do with a point of order raised after QP, when Blake Richards accused Trudeau of sticking his tongue out during a question raised by Diane Watts about P3 projects. Nobody but Richards seems to have witnessed this, but we do know that Trudeau does occasionally possess an irreverent side. Did he stick his tongue out? Maybe. Is it the end of the world if he did? Hardly, and in the theatrics of QP, it’s a bit tiresome but does raise the spectre of the “fuddle duddle” incident, if only less profane.

Continue reading →

QP: Demanding details of a deal not done

Posted on by

Another busy day on the hill, and while Trudeau had been in the Commons first thing to make another statement on the Fort McMurray situation, he was back for more as QP got underway. Rona Ambrose led off, mini-lectern on neighbouring desk, and asked for reassurance that infrastructure funding to rebuild Fort McMurray would be top priority. Trudeau assured her that yes, this was indeed a priority. Ambrose read the exact same question again in French, got the same answer, and then asked about the details for a bailout for Bombardier. Trudeau reminded her that the negotiations were ongoing, and that they expected a strong long-term business case. Denis Lebel then repeated the question in French, got the same answer, and for his final question, Lebel demanded that they government allow the Billy Bishop airport expand to let Porter also buy C-Series jets. Trudeau responded that they were not going to re-open the tripartite agreement around the Toronto waterfront. Thomas Mulcair was up next, and demanded criminal prosecutions for KPMG tax havens, and Trudeau reminded him that they were working to combat tax evasion. Mulcair repeated the question, got the same answer, before Mulcair moved onto the Canada Post review and not immediately restoring home mail delivery. Trudeau said that they committed to studying the issue and understanding how to give Canadians a better level of service. Mulcair asked the same again in English, skirting the rules around the use of the word “lying” in the chamber. Trudeau reiterated that they were putting in the time that the previous government didn’t in order to ensure Canadians got the right level of delivery.

Continue reading →

Roundup: A pointless procedural dust-up

Posted on by

The shine has come off around the medical assistance in dying bill, as the government decided that enough was enough, and it was time to send it to committee. So they invoked time allocation, and not surprisingly, there was all manner of outcry about how terrible this was, and Conservatives like Jason Kenney equivocating, insisting that they never employed time allocation on such sensitive life and death matters as this (ignoring things like safe injection sites or laws around prostitution as also being life and death matters for those that it affects). Kenney’s later assertions about what this bill will do were also…fanciful to say the least.

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/727954797190479872

I will say that I have little sympathy for MPs who railed about the government cutting off debate, after two nights of midnight sittings and over 84 MPs having spoken to the bill. This is second reading debate, which is the principle of the bill. And I’ve listened to enough speeches to know that they all basically say “this is a very personal issue,” and “What about palliative care?” with minor variations throughout. The concern trolling about the conscience rights of doctors is also in there, never mind that this is a bill dealing with the criminal code and that issue is one for the provinces who deliver healthcare and the provincial certification bodies for physicians. There remains committee stage debate – which is the real meat of the bill – report stage once it comes back, and third reading debate. If MPs still have things to say, there remain plenty of opportunities, and the government also pointed out that some MPs had been up to speak several times on the bill, meaning that there couldn’t possibly be that many more MPs who needed to speak. And if you’ll forgive my particular cynicism, how many more times do we need to hear MPs read those same sentiments in the record over and over again? The government was already generous in the amount of time it gave to debate second reading – accusing them of somehow stifling debate or invoking closure were both patently wrong and false. And so, once all of the procedural wrangling and grousing was done, it passed second reading by a wide margin. Liberal MP Robbie Falcon-Outlette was the sole member of that party to vote against, and he went on Power & Politics to make a bunch of patently false equivalences between this bill and the suicide crisis in places like Attawapiskat, with a host of intellectually dishonest arguments strewn along the way. The bill also began pre-study in the Senate, where I expect it will get a much tougher ride, and there remains a very real chance that even if the bill passes the Commons unscathed that it will not do so in the Senate, and that it may not pass by deadline.

https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/727990740576403456

Continue reading →